National talks update:Endorsed by the PEC

[Fluke]

I enjoy Dingo's posts, and whilst I agree that some posters unfairly give him a hard time, I also agree with Fishtank that your conceited belief that you speak on the behalf of other posters is a dangerous position to take. Your certainly not speaking on my behalf, and most posters on here are more than able to voice their own opinions.

[labbloke]

FAO Dingo, although not a prolific poster unlike some, i on behalf of the majority of posters/viewers on this site really appreciate your input and interest in points raised here.

Wow Fluke who pulled your tail, sounds a bit fishytank to me.

My humblest apologies to the minority of posters and viewers on this site who seem to think I am taking liberties.

Just goes to show you that in trying to be civil to a poster who we need on this site the usual sharks are circling to carp.

i would hope that we would all value each members input and interest on this site, how wrong I was, although have to say that on a site that has over 32000 members only 4 members seem upset with my kind words.

Strange that innit.

[Fluke]

FAO Dingo, although not a prolific poster unlike some, i on behalf of the majority of posters/viewers on this site really appreciate your input and interest in points raised here.

Wow Fluke who pulled your tail, sounds a bit fishytank to me.

My humblest apologies to the minority of posters and viewers on this site who seem to think I am taking liberties.

Just goes to show you that in trying to be civil to a poster who we need on this site the usual sharks are circling to carp.

i would hope that we would all value each members input and interest on this site, how wrong I was, although have to say that on a site that has over 32000 members only 4 members seem upset with my kind words.

Strange that innit.

Or only 4 could be bothered with your cheap sniping? Somebody else doesn't agree with your conceited view point and their a shark?

[fishtank]

We propose to write to the Chief Executive and put the company on notice that unless a satisfactory resolution on the above mentioned can be found by no later than week commencing 16th January, the Union will consider appropriate sanctions, including suspension of CWU support in all revision activity.

[gb93]

patience

[fishtank]

patience

I just can't wait to see the last minute "pulling of the iron out of the fire" compromise gb.
I'm all tingly with anticipation.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

patience

I just can't wait to see the last minute "pulling of the iron out of the fire" compromise gb.
I'm all tingly with anticipation.

Perhaps our compromise has been delayed by the Capita one

[dvbuk55]

We propose to write to the Chief Executive and put the company on notice that unless a satisfactory resolution on the above mentioned can be found by no later than week commencing 16th January, the Union will consider appropriate sanctions, including suspension of CWU support in all revision activity.

Christ, I hope I've got this wrong, I thought talks were due to COMMENCE on the 16th of January and that we had already pulled support for revision activity AND Flow Through - our planner has been here since before xmas, the revision of the revision is almost concluded, without CWU input I might add. This will be our second full revision in much less than 2 years whilst some have yet to have one!!!!!

The scuttlebutt is that they are aiming for cuts of 5% but our new build programme is greater than that and continues to grow

[Glenno]

.............



Our Ref : SF/230.03/hn/12

Date: 12th January 2012

Branch Secretaries, ADRs, ASRs, PEC, WDG, DRG,SPDO, Div Reps

















Dear Colleagues,

INDOOR FLOW UPDATE

Discussions have been taking place at national level on various aspects, including Health & Safety, Planning Values and IWT.

Some progress has been made on a number of fronts but we are not yet in a position at this point in time to lift the embargo.

Discussions will obviously continue but these will need to be considered in light of the PEC’s overall policy regarding the BT2010 agreement which is due to be considered again on the 18th January at a special PEC meeting.

A further update or LTB will be issued after 18th January.

Yours sincerely



Bob Gibson
Assistant Secretary

[dvbuk55]

Be nice to know where the progress has been made and what the sticking points are - still you know the old saying about growing mushrooms.

[Budfrog]

Firstly I do not have any in depth knowledge of how the PVs for deliveries were built up for either the inside or outside elements of the delivery function. I assume that nationally agreed PVs are built into the IWT and that Georoute takes care of the outside elements.

I do however have a great deal of experience of Mail Centre PVs/Workload. These all relate to indoor tasks and aside from a few (e.g. Meter Segregation) are in the main very accurate. (whether or not they are used correctly is open to question)

What I cannot get my head around is the vast difference in EP (or to use the correct term work rate) tasks for deliveries as opposed to Mail Centres. Historically MCs have been targeted for 75Bs (Manual) and 85Bs (Mech), the mech being higher due to the machine controlled elements. Now my understanding is that DOs have been targeted in the past for 100Bs which is 33% higher than their MC counterparts. Something here is seriously wrong either the DO PVs (or IWT itself) are seriously inaccurate or quite simply RM are using unrealistic targets.

The International agreed definition for a worker on 100Bs is:
Brisk, businesslike performance, as of an average qualified worker on piecework; necessary standard of quality and accuracy achieved with confidence.

I believe targets need to be uniform across the business and that it is RMs responsibility to ensure that the correct tools are in place and that all PVs are accurate (+/- 5% with 95% Conf). Post implementation, revisions need to be checked by CWU/RM to ensure that the aims of the revision have been achieved. It may take more time and from RMs perspective it may mean more qualified resource ... but at least it will be fair !!

[dvbuk55]

it may mean more qualified resource ... but at least it will be fair !!

And when has RM or the Union for that matter been interested in fair? Deliveries were sold down the river on the last agreement, with increased and unfair workloads, unrealistic targets and less pay particularly for part timers.

[fishtank]

What I cannot get my head around is the vast difference in EP (or to use the correct term work rate) tasks for deliveries as opposed to Mail Centres. Historically MCs have been targeted for 75Bs (Manual) and 85Bs (Mech), the mech being higher due to the machine controlled elements. Now my understanding is that DOs have been targeted in the past for 100Bs which is 33% higher than their MC counterparts. Something here is seriously wrong either the DO PVs (or IWT itself) are seriously inaccurate or quite simply RM are using unrealistic targets.

EP has been a bone of contention in D.O.'s for as long as i can remember,unfortunately most of the problems are self-inflicted.
It has been artificially boosted by starting early and skipping meal relief for so long now that the business actually believes that the figures are a realistic target.A perfect example of this was the fact that our EP on a Saturday was always at least 10 points higher than any other day of the week,simply because everyone started early and missed their break on a Saturday in order to get finished as early as possible.not only that but a great deal of offices are so far "in debt" with their EP that Doms are terrified of admitting the true scale of the problem for fear of losing their position...some offices are apparently running well above 100BSI.

I have no doubt that if you investigate the problems in the offices that have had catastrophic revision failures you will find offices that have been showing unrealistic EP figures for years and what has happened is the new delivery methods has seen a change in working practices from some members away from the starting early/missing breaks culture which has had a major knock on effect with the office's perceived efficiency.
Unfortunately this has led to an upsurge in bullying from some managers unable to comprehend why an office that was "working" so well can suddenly fail so badly which,coupled with a lack of protection and direction from the union leads to a return to the very practices that have placed us in this position.
There is no simple solution other than having all 1500 delivery offices independently T&M studied to provide a realistic reset of EP but i suspect the subsequent fall out would cost a great deal of managers their jobs and the business a great deal of hours to achieve this reset position.
We can only dream Budfrog.

[dvbuk55]

That culture of rush and finish was deliberately cultivated by RM - as I recall it was the job and finish idea that had everyone rushing round like lemmings to make time, much referred to by dingo, long gone of course in those offices who have had several revisions. The cessation of the use of private cars and everyman for himself has brought about a realignment of how a delivery office works. Paired working and bigger deliveries coupled with the later receipt of mail, fewer people on IPS and a stringent release time for commencement of deliveries has brought disaster. Something that was clearly obvious to delivery officers and totally missed by those who supposedly could see the big picture. Take a simple matter of dog sh*t on the LCTs wheels, which have to be folded several times - no-one foresaw that problem but it is an obvious flaw.

The modernisation plan has had the opposite effect and I believe it was devised to bring poorly performing offices into line and enforce revisions which would utilise the hours worked better. Well offices who were performing are the ones who have suffered and those who were poor performers are still performing poorly and have still to engage BT 2010 in any meaningful way.

[Glenno]

The modernisation plan has had the opposite effect and I believe it was devised to bring poorly performing offices into line and enforce revisions which would utilise the hours worked better. Well offices who were performing are the ones who have suffered and those who were poor performers are still performing poorly and have still to engage BT 2010 in any meaningful way.................
Yet again I take my hat off to you, and I also fear that GOOD offices will be turned into BAD ones post REVISIONS